Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Gov. Schwarzenegger has vetoed a proposed Harvey Milk (gay politician) Day.


Arnold Schwarzenegger has vetoed a proposed Harvey Milk Day. The measure would have set aside the birthday of the slain gay activist/politician in his memory and encourage public schools to commemorate and educate about the history of California's first openly gay politician.

Obama opposes California ballot which would ban gay marriage


Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, who previously said the issue of gay marriage should be left up to each state, has announced his opposition to a California ballot measure that would ban same-sex marriages.

In a letter to the "Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club," read Sunday at the group's annual Pride Breakfast in San Francisco, the Illinois senator said he supports extending "fully equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples under both state and federal law."

"And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states," Obama wrote.

Hofstra poll: McCain leads suburban vote


Don't expect to hear a peep from the Networks about this poll. I know it!

Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain holds a slight edge over Democratic rival Sen. Barack Obama among suburban voters, according to a new poll sponsored by Hofstra University to be released Monday.

The nationwide poll, conducted for Hofstra's National Center for Suburban Studies, found that 48 percent of suburban voters said they support McCain, compared to 42 percent for Obama.

By comparison, the poll found that McCain leads Obama among rural voters, 51 percent to 35 percent, while Obama is ahead in urban areas, 57 percent to 34 percent.

The results of the poll are scheduled to be released at 1 p.m. Monday at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.

Expect bias by moderator of Vice President debate


Do you believe it would be unfair to have as moderator a person who wrote a book in support of one of the 2 candidates?
Of course!
No media will admit to this fact
Why would Gov. Palin agree to this is beyond me unless they discovered this bias AFTER she agreed.

The moderator of Thursday's vice presidential debate between Democrat Sen. Joe Biden and GOP Gov. Sarah Palin is writing a book, to come out about the time the next president takes the oath of office, to "shed new light" on Democratic candidate Barack Obama and other "emerging young African American politicians" who are "forging a bold new path to political power."

Earlier when she covered the news on Palin's nomination, observers said she had a look of "disgust" while reporting on Palin.

She said she will make her own decisions about what questions to ask, and "the big questions matter."

False Equation: Opposing Same-Sex Marriage and Opposing Interracial Marriage


I have researched thoroughly on the issue of homosexual marriage & have once debated proponents on it. Obama is for civil union, which is a relative of gay marriage. mcCain is opposed.
Dennis Prager has done a good job at rebutting the most common argument for gay marriage. You will profit by reading it.

July 15, 2008 column

The most effective of all morality-based arguments for same-sex marriage, the one that persuades more people than any other argument, is the one that equates opposition to same-sex marriage with the old opposition to interracial marriage.

The argument, repeated so often that it sounds incontestable, is this: Just as parts of American society once had immoral laws that forbade whites and blacks from marrying, so, today, society continues to have immoral laws forbidding men from marrying men and women from marrying women. And just as decent people overthrew the former, decent people must overthrow the latter.

Thanks in large part to widespread higher education -- the higher the educational level, the more one is likely to hold this view -- vast numbers of Americans believe in this equation of sex (gender) and race.

But the equation is false.

First, there is no comparison between sex and race.

There are enormous differences between men and women, but there are no differences between people of different races. Men and women are inherently different, but blacks and whites (and yellows and browns) are inherently the same. Therefore, any imposed separation by race can never be moral or even rational; on the other hand, separation by sex can be both morally desirable and rational. Separate bathrooms for men and women is moral and rational; separate bathrooms for blacks and whites is not.

The second reason the parallel between opposing same-sex marriage and opposing interracial marriage is invalid is that opposition to marriage between races is a moral aberration while opposition to marrying a person of the same sex is the moral norm. In other words, none of the moral bases of American society, whether religious or secular, opposed interracial marriage -- not Judaism, not Christianity, not Judeo-Christian values, not deism, not humanism, not the Enlightenment. Yes, there were religious and secular individuals who opposed interracial marriage, but by opposing interracial marriage, they were advocating something against all Judeo-Christian and secular norms, all of which saw nothing wrong in members of different races intermarrying (members of different religions was a different matter)

The most effective of all morality-based arguments for same-sex marriage, the one that persuades more people than any other argument, is the one that equates opposition to same-sex marriage with the old opposition to interracial marriage.

The argument, repeated so often that it sounds incontestable, is this: Just as parts of American society once had immoral laws that forbade whites and blacks from marrying, so, today, society continues to have immoral laws forbidding men from marrying men and women from marrying women. And just as decent people overthrew the former, decent people must overthrow the latter.

Thanks in large part to widespread higher education -- the higher the educational level, the more one is likely to hold this view -- vast numbers of Americans believe in this equation of sex (gender) and race.

But the equation is false.

First, there is no comparison between sex and race.

There are enormous differences between men and women, but there are no differences between people of different races. Men and women are inherently different, but blacks and whites (and yellows and browns) are inherently the same. Therefore, any imposed separation by race can never be moral or even rational; on the other hand, separation by sex can be both morally desirable and rational. Separate bathrooms for men and women is moral and rational; separate bathrooms for blacks and whites is not.

The second reason the parallel between opposing same-sex marriage and opposing interracial marriage is invalid is that opposition to marriage between races is a moral aberration while opposition to marrying a person of the same sex is the moral norm. In other words, none of the moral bases of American society, whether religious or secular, opposed interracial marriage -- not Judaism, not Christianity, not Judeo-Christian values, not deism, not humanism, not the Enlightenment. Yes, there were religious and secular individuals who opposed interracial marriage, but by opposing interracial marriage, they were advocating something against all Judeo-Christian and secular norms, all of which saw nothing wrong in members of different races intermarrying (members of different religions was a different matter)

GOP Activists Urge McCain to Attack (Rev. Wright ads)


I concur. Have written much earlier about the power of such ads connecting Obama to the America-hating, racist Pastor of Obama

Hope we see them soon!

McCain camp launches Palin truth files to combat media attacks


See so much little known facts behind the so called troopergate
This is launched to combat the media smears against Sarah Palin
It has a great eye-opening video!


Obama took credit for raising FDIC to $250,000- not his idea!


Obma is out sounding like it's his idea is to up the FDIC insurance from a hundred grand to 250. It's Larry Kudlow's idea who is a brilliant economist, of course. Obama again interested to polish his image & steal other people's idea!

Yesterday Obama is out there before the vote telling everybody, "A historic vote today is going to save the country." After the vote went down he had to change his tune today. He's clueless, you don't know what's happening, he's playing no role in solving this mess.
Did you know the Democrats offered him the LEAD role to fix this mess, he declined! So much for his "leadership"
He has no accomplishments to brag in the Senate! Zero!

There's a piece today in, of all places -- of all places, you have to look really hard for it -- the CNN website. It's a commentary piece by Jeffrey A. Miron, who is a senior lecturer in economics at Harvard. He's a Libertarian. He was one of 166 academic economists who signed a letter to congressional leaders last week opposing the government bailout plan.

ABC News/WashPost Poll: Candidates Inch Closer


Latest Obama- 50

What Groups overall support McCain & Obama


What groups overall support Obama besides the obvious



Gay lobby




Big Union


18-29 age group

Arab- Muslim

Black & ethnic groups including Jewish


What groups overall support McCain

Evangelical, Christian


Second amendment groups


Blue collar workers

Retirees , over 65

Military & veterans

Home school, school voucher groups

Law & order, pro-death penalty

Hockey moms

White male middle class

Latest Gallup have mcCain gained 2 points


In a surprise, John McCain cut into Barack Obama's Gallup Poll lead on Tuesday. Obama leads 49-43 percent, down from 50-42 percent on Monday.

It is More Fun Watching Leaves Fall

By: SW

In the midst of the financial crisis my wife and I are leaving today on a long-planned trip to New England to watch the autumn leaves. It is more calm and fun to watch the leaves fall than watching the fate of this bail-out/socialization plan. This morning we realize that this is the first time in 28 years that the two of us go on a long trip.

I totally agree with RK's question: if this mess is really Bush's or Re publican's fault, WHY WOULD NOT THE DEMOCRATS SCREAM IMPEACHMENT AND INVESTIGATION? Bear in mind the liberals and the left hate Bush's guts.

While I am watching the leaves fall, my hope and my prayer is that such scandal be thoroughly exposed to every voter, particularly the independents, so they can make the right decisions come November.

In the meantime, this is all I will be watching for the next 12 days:

New Ad: Obama Spending Added To Bailout Will Break taxpayer's back!


Just released 1 hour ago! Will REALLY make voters think about Obama's plan to spend ONE TRILLION DOLLARS MORE after this bailout!
It will BREAK the taxpayer's back!

This may be a real shot in the arm for McCain. The people obviously loathe this bailout, precisely because the government is wasting our money bailing out a system that the government corrupted in the first place. If we add gasoline to the fire by electing Obama, a break-the-bank liberal spender of mythical proportions, we are done for. Obama will ruin us.

go to view at:

, Freddie and Fannie are facing a Grand Jury as a U. S. Attorney's Investigation is underway.


About time, wonder why the Democratic Congress did not call for an investigation of this Mess?
If they REALLY believed it's caused by Bush & Republicans, don't you think they would already have started the investigation proceedings? Of course!

Folks, this is huge! It is now a SCANDAL, the repercussions of which are TEN or more times the impact of the Enron Scandal!

We need to write to the editors of our newspapers and publicize this every way possible. Of course, we need to trace the money path through Dodd, Frank and company, directly to the anointed one.

Last week, they said unless Congress struck a deal, our economy will collapse- have we?


Mark Levin, one of my favorite talk show host, said this today:

Also, count me among those few here who want to thank the House Republicans for taking a bold stand against what had been a stampede on a scale I have never before witnessed on matters of huge consequence. Conservatism is ...the foundation of the civil society. The liberal uses crises, real or manufactured, to expand the power of government at the expense of the individual and private property. He has spent, in earnest, 70 years evading the Constitution's limits on governmental power. If conservatives don't stand up to this, who will? If they don't offer serious alternatives that address the current circumstances AND defend the founding principles, who will? The House Republicans have done both. And I, for one, thank them.

Incidentally, if you want to buy a home or car today you can. And if your credit is decent, you can get loans at a good rate. Last week we were told that if a deal was not struck by last Friday, our economy would collapse. It has not. That is not to say the evidence of economic troubles or worse should be ignored. It is to say that now is a time for reasoned decisions based on tried and true principles, not for abandoning them. I notice that the socialist, who, for the last 30 years, has insisted that private institutions make risky loans based on non-economic factors, still has not abandoned his policies. Socialism does not work. We shouldn't support more of it.

McCain up 2 in NV and 3 in NC, VA (ARG 9/30) in new polls

Obama Says Hamas and Hezbollah Have ‘Legitimate Claims’


Sen. Obama’s former top foreign affairs advisor, Robert Malley, recently had to resign his role in the Obama campaign due to holding meetings with the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. Mr. Malley’s favorable views of Hamas have been widely known for years. Malley had written extensively, sometimes co-writing articles with the late Yasser Arafat’s advisor Hussein Agha, blaming Israel, not Arafat, for the failure of the Camp David talks.

Had Malley’s views on (and meetings with) Hamas not been unveiled, who knows where Mr. Malley would have ended up in a potential Obama administration? Perhaps he would have been the Secretary of State. This is a sad and frightening possibility, or probability, because Sen. Obama is the least-vetted man in U.S. political history.

But this issue is different. In a New York Times article, written by David Brooks on May 16th of this year, Sen. Obama made a very revealing admission that has gone overlooked by the mainstream press. The article, entitled “Obama Admires Bush,” focused on Sen. Obama’s views regarding the Middle East. The “Bush” in question was George H.W. Bush, the senior, and throughout the interview Obama displays his affection for old-school James Baker/Brent Scowcroft foreign policy realism.
About midway through the interview, however, the man who wants to be President of the United States gave a whopper of a quote. In Brooks’ words:
The U.S. needs a foreign policy that “looks at the root causes of problems and dangers.” Obama compared Hezbollah to Hamas. Both need to be compelled to understand that “they’re going down a blind alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims” (emphasis mine).
Why has no one to date has asked the would-be Commander-in-Chief what he means by “legitimate claims”? Certainly there is a large distinction to be made between Palestinian and Lebanese innocents vs. the terrible Hamas and Hezbollah organizations. The former have aspirations which, if addressed, would help the United States geopolitically. But the latter? To suggest these terrorist groups have legitimate claims?

Family Security Matters

Daily New Video: bill Clinton AGREES Democrats are more to blame for the mess!


Who tried to rein in Fannie & Freedie? McCain & Republicans, the clear record shows.
This newest ad by McCain Camp is more effective, because it quotes from Clinton very recently in an interview

Bailout marks Karl Marx's comeback! Great analysis here


Yeah, I can't agree more on this analysis! Our economic foundation is shifting to a Marxist tenet. Who is right, Milton Friedman, John Keynes or Ludwig von Mises? Read on for a REAL education!
September 29, 2008

In his Communist Manifesto, published in 1848, Karl Marx proposed 10 measures to be implemented after the proletariat takes power, with the aim of centralizing all instruments of production in the hands of the state. Proposal Number Five was to bring about the “centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.”
If he were to rise from the dead today, Marx might be delighted to discover that most economists and financial commentators, including many who claim to favour the free market, agree with him.
Indeed, analysts at the Heritage and Cato Institute, and commentators in The Wall Street Journal

Monday, September 29, 2008

Obama's Wrong Values- brief video


Very good ad, quite effective, by Our country deserves better.
I know its head, Howard Kaloogian, who ran for State office in Ca.

Congressman Burgess stood up to & speak againt Speaker Pelosi-watch this brief video!


Oh, Wow! Rep. Burgess, Republican-TX , has the courage to speak on the floor, standing up to Speaker Pelosi, in a powerful speech, exposing the Liberal Democrat's dirty tactics. You will love this!

Top Economist - Bankruptcy Is Better Than Bailout


Commentary: Bankruptcy, not bailout, is the right answer

effrey A. Miron is senior lecturer in economics at Harvard University. A Libertarian, he was one of 166 academic economists who signed a letter to congressional leaders last week opposing the government bailout plan.

CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts (CNN) -- Congress has balked at the Bush administration's proposed $700 billion bailout of Wall Street. Under this plan, the Treasury would have bought the "troubled assets" of financial institutions in an attempt to avoid economic meltdown.

This bailout was a terrible idea. Here's why.

The current mess would never have occurred in the absence of ill-conceived federal policies. The federal government chartered Fannie Mae in 1938 and Freddie Mac in 1970; these two mortgage lending institutions are at the center of the crisis. The government implicitly promised these institutions that it would make good on their debts, so Fannie and Freddie took on huge amounts of excessive risk.

Worse, beginning in 1977 and even more in the 1990s and the early part of this century, Congress pushed mortgage lenders and Fannie/Freddie to expand subprime lending. The industry was happy to oblige, given the implicit promise of federal backing, and subprime lending soared.

This subprime lending was more than a minor relaxation of existing credit guidelines. This lending was a wholesale abandonment of reasonable lending practices in which borrowers with poor credit characteristics got mortgages they were ill-equipped to handle.

Once housing prices declined and economic conditions worsened, defaults and delinquencies soared, leaving the industry holding large amounts of severely depreciated mortgage assets.

The fact that government bears such a huge responsibility for the current mess means any response should eliminate the conditions that created this situation in the first place, not attempt to fix bad government with more government.

The obvious alternative to a bailout is letting troubled financial institutions declare bankruptcy. Bankruptcy means that shareholders typically get wiped out and the creditors own the company.

Bankruptcy does not mean the company disappears; it is just owned by someone new (as has occurred with several airlines). Bankruptcy punishes those who took excessive risks while preserving those aspects of a businesses that remain profitable.

In contrast, a bailout transfers enormous wealth from taxpayers to those who knowingly engaged in risky subprime lending. Thus, the bailout encourages companies to take large, imprudent risks and count on getting bailed out by government. This "moral hazard" generates enormous distortions in an economy's allocation of its financial resources.

...Talk of Armageddon, however, is ridiculous scare-mongering. If financial institutions cannot make productive loans, a profit opportunity exists for someone else. This might not happen instantly, but it will happen.

Obama, ACORN Pressured Banks to Make Unsafe Subprime Loans

Juastnotice this at Rush Limbaugh's website tonight

"That has provided an opening to radical groups like ACORN ... to abuse the law by forcing banks to make hundreds of millions of dollars in 'subprime' loans to often uncreditworthy poor and minority customers. Any bank that wants to expand or merge with another has to show it has complied with [these community redevelopment things] -- and approval can be held up by complaints filed by groups like ACORN. In fact, intimidation tactics, public charges of racism and threats to use CRA to block business expansion have enabled ACORN to extract hundreds of millions of dollars in loans and contributions from America's financial institutions." Think of ACORN as a thousand Jesse Jacksons, in terms of shaking down companies and institutions.

"Banks already overexposed by these shaky loans were pushed still further in the wrong direction when government-sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began buying up their bad loans and offering them for sale on world markets," and by the way, speaking of that, Obama did it again in the debate (which we're going to get to). He said that our reputation in the world, I think everybody would agree, is not what it once was. He said it in Berlin', he said it to a seven-year-old kid asking him why he wants to be president. Frankly, I am fed up with it. Because, folks, if you want to know our reputation around the world -- to the extent that it is -- is in disrepair, you might take a look at the fact that a bunch of foreign banks were lied to by US institutions who said these subprime loans were AAA paper. You can buy 'em up. Do you know we're bailing out foreign banks that do business on the United States on this basis because they bought up some of these assets?

So all this talk about how our image in the world has been dinged or damaged, let me tell you: to the extent that that's true, people in financial institutions around the world are saying, "What have you done to us? You've made us take on this worthless garbage paper. What have you done to us? What are you doing to your financial system?" It ain't about Iraq. It ain't about the war on terror. So there is Obama running around talking about how we've lost our esteem. That aggravates me like you cannot believe. We're going to analyze the debate as things shake out as the program unfolds before your very eyes. Of course Obama is as close to ACORN as anybody can be, closer to ACORN than anybody ever seeking the presidency. And ACORN went out and put their own pressure on these banks and lending institutions, political correctness pressure -- take it, you know, whatever it is -- to spread this misery far and wide under the terms and definitions of things like affordable housing.

I think there's something more devious than that going on. We know several things institutionally. We know that the left wants as large a government as possible. We also know the left wants as many citizens in this country depending on government, not just for their needs but for their wants as well, but particularly their needs. We also know that owning a home in this country has been one of the most desirable things people have had. Many people, most people work themselves to the bone to be able to save up for a down payment, to be able to qualify -- and all of a sudden, the Democrats and the Clinton administration came along and said, "Why make it so hard on people? It's unfair. Let's just get 'em into homes. Let's threaten the lending institutions to loan 'em money they can't pay back. As long as home prices keep going up, this is not going to be a problem. It will be fine." Well, everything goes up goes down eventually. It's galled gravity. It's called supply and demand. It's called economic cycles, and we're where we are. So now the bailout is about making sure that all these people whose votes have been bought stay bought.

Secret, Foreign Money Floods into Obama Campaign


September 29, 2008 9:23 PM

I smell a stinking fish! This is very unusual. Again, had mcCain been found with this, it will be all over the news!

The Barack Obama campaign has raised a whopping $426.9 million -- nearly twice that of John McCain's campaign, according to new campaign finance report.

But because of Obama’s high expenses during the hotly contested Democratic primary season and an early decision to forgo public campaign money and the spending limits it imposes, all that cash has not translated into a financial advantage -- at least, not yet.

The Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee began September with $95 million in cash, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

But Obama could easily outpace McCain by $50 million to $100 million or more in new donations before Election Day, thanks to a legion of small contributors whose names and addresses have been kept secret.

Unlike the McCain campaign, which has made its complete donor database available online, the Obama campaign has not identified donors for nearly half the amount he has raised, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP).

Federal law does not require the campaigns to identify donors who give less than $200 during the election cycle. However, it does require that campaigns calculate running totals for each donor and report them once they go beyond the $200 mark.

Surprisingly, the great majority of Obama donors never break the $200 threshold.

Here's more"

The FEC has compiled a separate database of potentially questionable overseas donations that contains more than 11,500 contributions totaling $33.8 million. More than 520 listed their “state” as “IR,” often an abbreviation of Iran. Another 63 listed it as “UK,” the United Kingdom.

More than 1,400 of the overseas entries clearly were U.S. diplomats or military personnel, who gave an APO address overseas. Their total contributions came to just $201,680.

But others came from places as far afield as Abu Dhabi, Addis Ababa, Beijing, Fallujah..."

Concerns about foreign fundraising have been raised by other anecdotal accounts of illegal activities.

In June, Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi gave a public speech praising Obama, claiming foreign nationals were donating to his campaign.

“All the people in the Arab and Islamic world and in Africa applauded this man,” the Libyan leader said. “They welcomed him and prayed for him and for his success, and they may have even been involved in legitimate contribution campaigns to enable him to win the American presidency..."

Though Gadhafi asserted that fundraising from Arab and African nations were “legitimate,” the fact is that U.S. federal law bans any foreigner from donating to a U.S. election campaign.

Kenneth R. Timmerman, News Max

Here's Obama & GNC's motion to dismiss Berg's lawsuit on his inelligibility to run for President

September 29, 2008

Philip J. Berg filed a response this afternoon to the motion for dismissal filed last week in Berg vs. Obama by Senator Obama and the Democratic National Committee. The response "PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT THEREOF TO DEFENDANT’S, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE’S, MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO RULE 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)" asserts that, the defendants' argument to the contrary, Mr. Berg has standing to pursue the case.

Mr. Berg provides precedents which he argues establish his standing and petitions the Court to deny dismissal and order the defendants to produce the documents in the previously requested discovery.

The conclusion of Mr. Berg's brief reads:

Plaintiff served discovery in way of Admissions and Request for Production of Documents, on Defendants on September 15, 2008 and has attempted to obtain verification of Obama’s eligibility through Subpoenas to the Government entities and the Hospital’s in Hawaii. To date, Plaintiff has not received the requested discovery from the Defendants and two (2) of the locations, which subpoenas were served upon, refused to honor the subpoena. For the above aforementioned reasons, Plaintiff respectfully request Defendants Barack Hussein Obama and the Democratic National Committee’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) be denied and order immediate discovery, including but not limited to: 1) a certified copy of Obama’s “vault” (original long version) Birth Certificate; and (2) a certified copy of Obama’s Certificate of Citizenship; and (3) a certified copy of the Oath of Allegiance taken by Obama taken at the age of majority. If the Court is inclined to grant Defendants motion, Plaintiff respectfully requests the opportunity to amend his Complaint pursuant to the findings of this Honorable Court. The complete filing is attached. Due to a problem with the Electronic Filing System, the filing was made via fax and will appear in PACER later this evening or on Tuesday.


If you are Obama, won't you immediately decide the most inexpensive and simple way to stop this nuisance is to produce the REAL birth certificate. Every one has one? Where is he hiding his & why?

Democrat Congressman: 'We put thieves in jail, we don't bail them out'...


"We are now in the golden age of thieves. And where I come from we put thieves in jail, we don't bail them out." — Rep. Pete Visclosky, Democrat.

Well said! Yes, for those Democtrats with backbone! I would as soon vote for them than those spineless Republicans who squander taxpayer's money! I am for principle over party though some of you may feel this is partisan.

The Indiana delegation voted 6-3 against the bill. Democrats Joe Donnelly and Brad Ellsworth and Republican Mark Souder voted to support the bill, while it was opposed by Democrats Andre Carson, Baron Hill and Pete Visclosky and Republicans Dan Burton, Steve Buyer and Mike Pence

"I have been rushed to judgment by the Bush Administration before. There hasn't been enough time to evaluate the impacts this legislation would have if enacted, or to consider alternatives. Congress deserves time to weigh the benefits and the potential pitfalls of borrowing this money." — Rep. Baron Hill, Democrat.

(Comment: More power to Democrat Rep Hills)

Outrage over ACORN's masssive frauds


ACORN has often been in the news since 2004. Officially, they work to register voters and support housing. In reality, everyone in public life knows that they are hardcore supporters for the Democratic Party, and employ bare-knuckle tactics. Their organization is plagued by repeated investigations of voter fraud and other crimes.

In Ohio, where as secretary of state I oversaw elections for eight years, ACORN has been busy. One ACORN man in Reynoldsburg was indicted on two felony counts of voter fraud, and another was indicted in Columbus. Other such problems surfaced in Cuyahoga County, where criminal investigations are ongoing.

It’s not just Ohio. ACORN personnel are facing criminal charges in over a dozen states. In Washington State, for example, seven ACORN leaders had felony charges filed against them for voter fraud.

And there’s an unexpected twist. One of the organizations accused of pushing banks into making many of the unwise loans at the heart of the current crisis is … ACORN. Now that’s ironic. An organization that possibly contributed to our current financial profits is now being considered to make money off of it. And by “money,” I’m referring to your tax money.

Twice already this year Congress has funneled money to ACORN. Some report that February’s economic stimulus included funds for ACORN, as did the bill to help people struggling with mortgages passed this April.

What deserves closer scrutiny is Barack Obama’s history with ACORN. Obama cites Saul Alinsky, a self-acknowledged radical who advocated extreme acts to achieve social goals, as one of his inspirations. ACORN follows the Saul Alinsky model. After Obama graduated from Harvard, he went to work for ACORN in Chicago. Mr. Obama then became a trainer for ACORN.

Congressional Democrats, and specifically Mr. Obama, are now saying that the problem underlying all this is “deregulation,” pushed by the Republicans. There are two fundamental flaws with this allegation.

First, this is not deregulation. This is not the private sector. Fannie and Freddie are government creations, that pay their executives millions of dollars but are shielded with your tax money from suffering the downside risk of the market. Engage in racetrack-style financing, they must be strictly controlled. Deregulation is about keeping government from hobbling the private sector and hamstringing its ingenuity and productivity. Deregulation does not apply.

Second, Republicans have tried to rein in Fannie and Freddie. Republican attempts to reform them in 1999 failed. In 2003, when Alan Greenspan testified about how Fannie and Freddie’s loose practices could endanger our financial system, it was Democrat Barney Frank who said these institutions were fundamentally sound, and should be more aggressive in getting loans to low-income people. In 2005, a Republican reform passed the Senate Banking Committee on a party-line vote, only to be blocked by Democrats from passing the full Senate. And in 2006 when John McCain spoke on the Senate floor of the need to reform Fannie and Freddie immediately, Democrats (including Barack Obama) would not respond.

Ken Blackwell, NRO

How Obama helped built ACORN into the largest radical left group today

What is Acorn?

They would describe themselves as a community action group, that helps low to middle class families with house, loans and other social needs. The problem is, they are also an anti-Capitalist group, even the largest radical group in America today!

journalist Sol Stern, this group is nothing more than a radical group, "leading this city to serfdom".

Journalist Sol Stern wrote,"If you thought the New Left was dead in America, think again. Walk through just about any of the nation’s inner cities, and you’re likely to find an office of ACORN, bustling with young people working 12-hour days to “organize the poor” and bring about “social change.” .... ACORN has 120,000 dues-paying members, chapters in 700 poor neighborhoods in 50 cities, and 30 years’ experience. It boasts... with some remarkable successes in getting municipalities and state legislatures to enact its radical policy goals into law."

The Wall Street Journal also covered this group:
"...When California regulators sued Acorn for not paying its own workers the minimum wage, Acorn argued that this would endanger its mission—because it would have to hire fewer workers."

So basically, they drove business out of town with their practices, but called foul when it came back on them.

I heard on radio how that these ACORN activists would approach & pressure these banks, to HAVE to lend money to the poor, regardless of their qualification.

This group is being investigated for voter fraud right now. Apparently, their workers registered about 2,000 fraudulent voters for an election. (Comment: Is Obama mobilizing ACORN nationally to get MORE votes this way? H'mmmm)


The ACORN workers told state investigators that they went to the Seattle public library , sat at a table and filled out the voter registration forms. They made up names, addresses, and Social Security numbers and in some cases plucked names from the phone book. One worker said it was a lot of hard work making up all those names and another said he would sit at home, smoke marijuana and fill out the forms.

How does this relate to Obama?

When you here Obama tout his "community organizer" experience. ACORN is what hes talking about. What has he done for this group?

1. Obama worked with a woman named Madeleine Talbot (ACORN leader), to clean up asbestos. Actually, she did all the work and Obama just took all the credit. In any case, Talbot lead an attempted raid on the Chicago City Council.


And what exactly was Talbot’s work with Acorn? Talbot turns out to have been a key leader of that attempt by Acorn to storm the Chicago City Council ...While Sol Stern mentions this story in passing, the details are worth a look: On July 31, 1997, six people were arrested as 200 Acorn protesters tried to storm the Chicago City Council session. According to the Chicago Daily Herald, Acorn demonstrators pushed over the metal detector and table used to screen visitors, backed police against the doors to the council chamber, and blocked late-arriving aldermen and city staff from entering the session. As Talbot was led away handcuffed, charged with mob action and disorderly conduct, she explicitly justified her actions in storming the meeting. This was the woman who first drew Obama into his alliance with Acorn, and whose staff Obama helped train.

(Comment: Sounds familiar, Obama suggesting supporters to use in-your-face aggressive way to persuade people to vote for Obama. Do they appear to be a bunch of thugs, like some suggest?)

Obama misled voters that he helped many races

2. Obama claims to have worked with with blacks, whites and Hispanics with this group, but in the LA times article, the community claims it was mostly blacks.


Consider the second charge against Obama raised by the L.A. Times backgrounder. On the stump today, Obama often says he helped prevent South Side Chicago blacks, Latinos, and whites from turning on each other after losing their jobs, but many of the community organizers interviewed by the L. A. Times say that Obama worked overwhelmingly with blacks.
Not that big of a deal, but it goes to show how Obama misleads people about what hes done as a so called "Community Organizer".

Why has the media been silent on this?

Roll Calls on who voted yes, no on Bailout





---- AYES 205 ---

Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bono Mack
Boyd (FL)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cole (OK)
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Tom
Edwards (TX)
Frank (MA)
Hall (NY)
Hastings (FL)
Inglis (SC)
Johnson, E. B.
King (NY)
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lofgren, Zoe
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Neal (MA)
Peterson (PA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Van Hollen
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wasserman Schultz
Weldon (FL)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)

---- NOES 228 ---

Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bishop (UT)
Boyda (KS)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burton (IN)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Deal (GA)
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Edwards (MD)
English (PA)
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Herseth Sandlin
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
King (IA)
Kuhl (NY)
Lewis (GA)
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McMorris Rodgers
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Peterson (MN)
Price (GA)
Rogers (MI)
Sánchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Walz (MN)
Welch (VT)
Whitfield (KY)
Wittman (VA)
Young (AK)
Young (FL)




Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis


You gotta watch this eye-opening expose of the Democrat's cover up!
If McCain or some PAC will run these ads , he will LIKELY win!
It's all there!
You must forward this to friends in battleground States.

Boehner: "Pelosi's Ugly Partisan Attack Defeated Bail-out Bill"


Well, Pelosi just put her big foot in her big mouth! She has audacity to blame this on the Republicans, when it was CLEARLY the Democrats who caused this mess!

Republican Boehner speaking (saw on MSNBC). Pelosi apparently gave such a vile, hate-spewing attack of Bush and the Republicans on the House floor, blaming the current financial problems on "Eight years of this administration and its allies in Congress" that, according to one report, the heads of some Repubs who heard it 'exploded' and they 'went berserk.' The attack was so ugly that several dozen Dems bolted, too.

That smarmy, bug-eyed old Stalinist ("Riches for me; misery for you") just couldn't keep her bile bottled-up long enough for the vote. All bets are off now. Source on CNBC now saying DOW will drop an additional 2500 points by the end of the week.

Obama camp claims they will win by landslide


Yes, lately, the Obama camp looks more hopeful of winning. Today, the Obama camp express confidence they will win, even by a landslide. They say the internal polls show they should do even better. One huge reason is the economic news , another is the Bush handlers have been restraining Gov. Palin rather than unleash her talents and energy! McCain just dispatched 2 top aides, and latest word is Palin should have more freedom to speak.

Despite popular vote leads ranging from anywhere from 5-9 points, the Democrats, so far anyway, have failed to show that large of a lead on a state-by-state basis. I see in Battleground poll, for example, shows that Obama only leads 286-252 in the electoral vote count.
1964 - The last Dem landslide

The last Democratic landslide was in 1964, when then-President Johnson defeated GOPer Barry Goldwater, 486-52. Though 44 years has passed since that election, it could give us a big clue for 2008. If, for example, Obama wins in Virginia early on election night, it will be the first time that the Commonwealth went blue since the Johnson-Goldwatch matchup. Right now, Va is polling well for the Dems, which is certainly a troubling sign. Another red state that hasn't voted for the Dems since '64: Indiana. Again, if Obama takes Indiana, watch out for a huge Obama victory.

If any of these now-solid red states which voted for Carter in '76 switch to blue on election night, McCain/Palin is in trouble: Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, North Carolina, and South Carolina. Luckily none of these four states appear headed blue.

These Clinton states voted for the 42nd president in '92 but haven't voted Democrat since then: Montana, Georgia, West Virginia and Colorado. Colorado is polling very well for Obama, while Montana and certainly Georgia, are less so. West Virginia will remain red.

Watch the key states mentioned here, by order of poll closings (Eastern time) for clues:

6 p.m. Indiana - Long night for the GOP if it loses here. Kentucky

7 p.m. Florida South Carolina Virginia - A Obama victory here wouldn't be a surprise.

7:30 p.m. Ohio West Virginia - unlikely to go Obama. Ohio is critical to McCain.

9 p.m. Lousiana Arizona Colorado - Arizona will not go to Obama, but Colorado might. Could this decide the election? New Mexico

House defeats financial industry bailout bill


Great efforts!
They are afraid to face angry voters in a few weeks! Many up for reelection.

The leaders won't give up to badger & persuade them to change their vote.
Keep calling your Congressmen!

At Debate, Biden Told: Ignore Palin


I must say since the GOP Convention, Gov. Palin has come under increasing scrutiny, and it must be stressful to be thrust on national media. She did not handle a question in a TV interview when CBS's Katie Couric asked her to explain her claim that Alaska's proximity to Russia and Canada gave her foreign policy experience. She needs to come across more confident and clear in her message.
if Biden get too confrontational with her, he could lose points.
If they asked her question about her religious beliefs &/or her pastor's beliefs, and she does not expect it, it could affect her performance & results.

As Senator Biden prepares to face off against Governor Palin on Thursday night in the campaign's lone vice presidential debate, Democratic strategists have a few words of advice for the lawmaker of Delaware: Ignore the Alaskan.

But Democrats are worried that his penchant for verbal missteps and his occasionally aggressive style could be a liability as he faces only the second woman to serve as a major party nominee for the vice presidency.

"His goal is to ignore Palin and focus on connecting with voters sitting in their living rooms by making clear he is indeed one of them — an uncommon, common man," a Democratic strategist who served as an aide to Vice President Gore during the 2000 campaign, Christopher Lehane, said.

Poll shows Obama has 21-point lead among Arab Americans


What does that tell you, and most Arabs are of what religion?

Bernanke: Federal Reserve caused Great Depression- won't do it again


I have done research into the Federal Reserve, and most Americans are in the dark about how it was founded and what kind of "quasi- government" institution it is. Maybe another time, it's too complicated to explain in a few words.

Despite the varied theories espoused by many establishment economists, it was none other than the Federal Reserve that caused the Great Depression and the horrific suffering, deprivation and dislocation America and the world experienced in its wake. At least, that's the clearly stated view of current Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke.

The worldwide economic downturn called the Great Depression, which persisted from 1929 until about 1939, was the longest and worst depression ever experienced by the industrialized Western world. While originating in the U.S., it ended up causing drastic declines in output, severe unemployment, and acute deflation in virtually every country on earth. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, "the Great Depression ranks second only to the Civil War as the gravest crisis in American history."

What exactly caused this economic tsunami that devastated the U.S. and much of the world?

In "A Monetary History of the United States," Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman along with coauthor Anna J. Schwartz lay the mega-catastrophe of the Great Depression squarely at the feet of the Federal Reserve.

Here's how Friedman summed up his views on the Fed and the Depression in an Oct. 1, 2000, interview with PBS:

PBS: You've written that what really caused the Depression was mistakes by the government. Looking back now, what in your view was the actual cause?

Friedman: Well, we have to distinguish between the recession of 1929, the early stages, and the conversion of that recession into a major catastrophe.

The recession was an ordinary business cycle. We had repeated recessions over hundreds of years, but what converted [this one] into a major depression was bad monetary policy.

The Federal Reserve System had been established to prevent what actually happened. It was set up to avoid a situation in which you would have to close down banks, in which you would have a banking crisis. And yet, under the Federal Reserve System, you had the worst banking crisis in the history of the United States. There's no other example I can think of, of a government measure which produced so clearly the opposite of the results that were intended.

Source: world net daily 3/19/2008

Sunday, September 28, 2008

Historical examples of how Sept. polls results were greatly changed by Election- an analysis


A look at liberal blogs reveals gleeful Democrats ready to pop their champagne corks and celebrating an Obama victory, considering the current movement in polls. Meanwhile, some Republicans seem caught somewhere between fatalistic resignation and despair. Not to panic! We are several weeks out, for one thing.
Many voters will NOT decide or will change their mind the last 48 hours.
Yes, today's Gallup Poll shows moving out to an 8 point lead on McCain, while the reliable Rasmussen poll shows a 6 point lead and the Hotline/FD poll shows a 5% Obama lead. According to the current Real Clear Politics (which average out various polls), Obama leads by 4.3%.

I believe that the last two weeks have very nearly constituted a "perfect storm" for Obama, with Wall Street Crises hanging over every one’s head. This definitely help steer many towards Obama, as McCain is PERCEIVED to be similar to Bush.
A little historical context about presidential polling is in order.

First, some examples related to the instability of polling in the final weeks of presidential elections.
• You probably forgot that around this time in September of 2000, a Newsweek poll showed Al Gore leading George Bush by a 52-38 margin. We've yet to see ANY poll showing anything close to a 14 point lead for Obama, and we know how the 2000 election turned out.
• At approximately this point in the race in 2004, polls showed George Bush with a lead in most polls that looked slightly greater than Obama's current lead. (8 in the CNN/USAT/Gallup, 8 in Pew, 7 in the Battleground, 6 in ABC/WJ). By the time the election rolled around, the race was back within virtually every poll's margin of error, with a RCP average of +1.5% for Bush.

• In 1996, the CBS/New York Times final pre-election poll predicted an 18% Clinton victory. This was 9.5% greater than the actual result.
I'd also like to point out that when Rasmussen (most reliable) put out his final poll for the New Hampshire Democratic primary in January, he showed Obama at 37% and Hillary Clinton at 30%. Clinton did nine points better than that, winning 39-36. The RCP average for this contest was also wrong--predicting an 8.3 Obama victory. Reuters, for instance, predicted that Obama would win by 13 points. They were fully 10 points off. This raises real questions about Obama's ability to deliver in actual votes what he's predicted to receive by the polls.
Of course, past performance is never a predictor of future results. All that I'm sure of is that a 5-8 deficit in September polls is not quite as terrible as some might initially think, considering we are in the midst of this financial storm. Will the economic news be AS BAD weeks from now? Probably not.
Finally, something like 20% of likely voters still have not made up their minds.
A significant % of Hillary supporters WILL NOT vote for Obama.
In blue states one-third of white and blue-collar Democrats just won't vote for a black man.

Obama cannot get over 50% in the polls. He is stuck around 46 to 49. So fret not, historically American voters do not like to put in office an ultra-liberal.

Why giving a tax cut to 95% is not possible under Obama's plan- an insightful analysis


Under Obama's plan, he claims 95% of the people will get a tax cut.

It has become a mantra, repeated so often, many people believe it.
As the saying goes, if it sounds TOO good to be true, it probably is!
Now I am not a tax guy or accountant, so I could be wrong. From what i have read, I think less than 60% of Americans pays any Federal Income tax.
So how is it possible to give a tax cut to 95%? Please explain?
To give a tax cut, it implies & infers you are paying taxes already, correct?

If this number is correct, then Obama's claim needs to be challenged every time he utters the phrase

His tax plan is a despicable shell game, the end result of which will HURT, not help the prror.
Foollow my reasoning:
Sure, on the surface he'll cut their individual "direct" taxes by shifting a huge increase to "the rich" whot make 250K or more, but many of these own businesses, both small and large.

Guess what will these busineses owners do?
They will HAVe to either pass those increases right back to the consumers in the form of price increase, because those tax increases will be an operational cost.
So it will cost more to but things, groceries, you name it, from the stores!

Who get hurt the most? The poor!

Obama's plan will make the poor poorer.

That's not all. Another part of his tax plan is to increase the payroll taxes on businesses, which means that their operational costs for labor will be prohibitive and they'll have to reduce labor expenditures to bear the burden.
Tranaslated- that means less new jobs, and layoffs!
Again this will hurt the working people!

After Obama's "tax plan" is implemented, small businesses will not be able to survive without a "bailout-style" government intervention...in other words, it will stifle and kill small businesses!

Small businesses account for over 70 percent of new jobs in the economy, and that is going dry up soon in a vicious cycle to punish the majority of people who depenfds on their paychecks to survive, to pay their mortgage!

So being you are so nAIVE to clap your hands,"Yeah, let's tax the rich!", THINK through the ripple effect, it will come back to haunt you some day, believe it or not

Public opinion is running from 100 to 1 to 300 to 1 against passing Bailout bill


Public opinion is running anywhere from 100:1 to 300:1 against passing this bill, according to sources on Capitol Hill. Yet, latest word is Congress is near the passing of this bailout. will there be a public outrage , translated in ouster of incumbents? We shall see.



Remember the debate Friday night, when Senator Obama said, "I have a bracelet too" Good Old WHAT'S HIS NAME? He had to look up the name of an American Hero Sergeant, Ryan David Jopek . Well Sgt Jopek's mother asked the Senator to STOP WEARING THE BRACELET!

Saturday, September 27, 2008

Paulson's $700Billion is A LIE, they need $5 TRILLION !


Yeah, I tell you, this is a bottomless pit, and $700 Billion is just a starter! The Democrats & Bush want you to take that first step to bailout, then the precedent has been set for more bailouts.

Sept. 23 (Bloomberg) -- Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's $700 billion plan to buy devalued assets from financial companies is ``a joke'' because it doesn't go far enough to calm markets, said Kenichi Ohmae, president of Business Breakthrough Inc.

Ohmae, nicknamed ``Mr. Strategy'' during his 23 years as a McKinsey & Co. partner, called for a $5 trillion ``international facility'' to be made available to financial institutions. The system could be modeled on one used by Sweden during its banking crisis in the early 1990s, he said.

``This is a liquidity crisis,'' Ohmae said at an investor forum hosted by CLSA Asia-Pacific Markets, the regional broking arm of Credit Agricole SA, in Hong Kong yesterday. ``The liquidity has to be so big that people won't get panicky.''

Paulson's proposal to remove hard-to-sell assets clogging the financial system marks the broadest intervention since at least the Great Depression. Asian stocks fell today, following U.S. shares lower as investors questioned whether the effort is enough to prevent a recession.

The plan came after the collapse of 158-year-old Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and the government takeover of insurer American International Group Inc. caused financial markets to seize up last week. The calamity was the culmination of a year during which the U.S. housing market slump left banks and securities firms with more than $520 billion of asset writedowns and credit losses.

Yesterday, Paulson and lawmakers narrowed their differences on the plan and agreed that the U.S. should get equity in participating companies.

Only 7% support Bailout- Call your congreessmen!


With a Rasmussen poll finding support for the bailout at an anemic seven percent, some members of Congress are afraid to vote for it. Call them Monday! Let them hear from you! Tell them you will never vote for anyone who supports this ourageous rip off of taxpayer's money.

It's easy to criticize but let's be constructive and proactive! Let them know you do not support the bail out.

The Democrats, being the majority Party, REALLY have enough votes to pass the bailout, then why don't they? Could it be they want to DRAG the Republicans into the mud, so come November, the voters may be mad at Republicans & Democrats?

The REAL reason for the RUSH to Bailout- worth reading!


I have scratched my head why such a rush, why can't we wait a few weeks to think through, debate, before Congress decides the best course of action. The following piece is revealing & if true, it makes a lot of sense.

Why the rush? Why not take some time to fully explore the risks, discuss the financial, economic and political ramifications, and figure out ways to minimize the cost to taxpayers?

Although those in charge have attributed their sense of urgency to fears of an imminent seize-up in financial markets, it is conceivable that policymakers could have applied a few more of the band-aids they have been using prior to now so that the issues and prospective outcomes could be examined more fully in the harsh light of day.

Unless, of course, there is more to it than what our leaders are admitting to. In "Brad Setser: Extraordinary Times," the London Banker blog suggests the pressure for a rapid-fire solution stems from the precarious financial position of the rescuer-in-chief: the Federal Reserve.

Brad Setser has a fascinating insight to offer in his newest post, Extraordinary Times:

In the last two weeks — if I am reading the Federal Reserves’ balance sheet data correctly — the Fed has:

Increased “other loans” to the financial system by around $230 billion (from $23.56b to $262.34b);

Increased its “other assets” by about $80b (from $98.67b to $183.89b);

Increased the securities it lends out to dealers by $60b (from $117.3b to $190.5b);

That works out to the provision of something like $370b of credit to the financial system in a two week period. And that is just what I saw on a cursory glance.

The most that the IMF ever lent out to cash strapped emerging economies in a year?

$30b, in the four quarters through September 1998 (i.e. the peak of the 97-98 crisis).

The most the IMF ever lend out over two years?

$40b, in the eight quarters through June 2003 (this covered crises in Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Turkey)

This is a very real crisis. The Fed’s balance tells a story of extraordinary stress. I never would have expected to see the Fed lent out these kinds of sums over such a short-period...

I’ve been speculating all week that the pressure being used on the Congress to pass the Paulson Plan is the threat of Fed illiquidity. As of two weeks ago, the Fed had lent out more than $600 billion of its $800 billion balance sheet Treasuries against crap MBS collateral.

The Paulson Plan would have allowed the banks to unwind the repos putting the Treasuries back in the Fed, get cash for the crap MBS, and get more Treasuries from the issues financing the $700+ billion funding of the Plan. As a bonus, the Paulson mark-to-maturity price becomes the implicit Level 3 price for capitalization of all the firms and banks in the system, giving them some breathing room to stay in business. Everyone wins except the poor American taxpayer.

The Fed is very close to being illiquid. That is the fear factor we are seeing at work, and the reason no one will discuss why the bailout is needed - only emphasise the urgency.

The Only Debate Poll That Counts; McCain 82%, Obama 26%


Saturday, September 27, 2008

The debate was broadcast on many different stations last night. NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, CNBC, CNN, etc. However, it is widely acknowledged that all of these stations are unapologetically left-leaning organizations who are, and have been from the beginning, “in the tank” for Obama. Hence, their viewership is similarly inclined. Any poll of the viewers of these “anti-news” organs is going to be artificially skewed.

There is another news agent, however. Its viewership is remarkably balanced; there was a figure publicized just two days ago on its afternoon chat show which informed that its viewers broke down as follows: 36% Republican, 30% Democrat, 30% Independent. This same news organ also happens to enjoy a viewership which, in terms of raw numbers, exceeds all the other lefty cable “news” stations combined.

This is Fox News. Their viewers are the focus here. It is huge, and it is balanced across the political spectrum.

After the debate concluded, Fox invited its’ viewers to vote on who they thought won. They voted McCain 82%, Obama 16%. Even if you factor in the slight increase in Republicans compared to Democrats, the % are SO lopsided, and it really wasn’t even close, no matter how you adjust or cut it!

Kissinger today says McCain , not Obama , is right on " without preconditions"


Henry Kissinger does not believe US President should sit down with leader of Iran without pre-condition. So Henry Kissinger on Fox today (after Debate) sided with McCain, proving Obama a liar, or at least mistaken.

YouTube video embedding has been disabled on this one.
but you can go to this link & watch the proof from horse's own mouth:


Historical Voting Patterns are MORE Reliable than Political Polls-Here's Evidence


There are those who are worried about some State polls showing Obama slightly ahead in several crucial States. More reliable than polls are the historic voting patterns of these states. The Democrats have nominated their most left wing candidate, well, at least since McGovern. Also MOST inexperienced.
I refer you to historical trends:

1. Virginia has NOT voted Democratic in 42 years since the LBJ landslide. The military retirees in the southeast and the rural voters in the rest of Virginia are not going to turn to Obama when they would not turn to Clinton.

2. Colorado has voted Democrat only once since 1964 and that was in 1992 when Clinton, again aided by a strong third party challenge from Perot won. It reverted to the GOP in 1996 (in spite of Perot and Dole’s weakness) and has remained in GOP hands since then. Since then, George Bush took it very comfortably by 150,000 and 100,000 votes respectively. How plausible do you find it that Clinton could not even win it during an easy electoral victory in 1996 against Dole and yet Obama is going to win it against 2 westerners like McCain and Palin. Especially with the NRA in overdrive in a big 2nd Amendment state. Note that the polls in Colorado always showed Sen. Wayne Allard losing and he won comfortably by 5% both times against a relatively centrist Democrat and strong candidate Tom Strickland both in 1996 and 2002.

3. Pennsylvania....among the oldest states in the union with a very high percentage of vets. the margin has shrunk from 400K votes in 1996 to 200K votes in 2000 to 140K votes in 2004, in spite of the fact that in 2000 and 2004, you had a qualified veteran at the top of the Dem ticket and a non veteran southerner at the top of the GOP ticket. Obama was clobbered in the Dem primary and lost particularly badly among older white and union voters, the same ones that are purportedly undecided this time. For the past 2 election cycles these voters have been increasingly turning away from qualified Dem candidates, who are veterans, toward Bush, a non vet and a Southerner. There is no reason not to expect a flood of these voters to McCain. Vote fraud in Philly can get you only so far, especially with Palin drawing huge crowds and interest not to mention votes. The same applies a fortiori to Ohio. And to Michigan.

The GOP prospects are not nearly as grim as some suggest. In fact they are actually brighter than they were in 2000 and 2004.

In other words, they have their polls, unreliable as we all know they are. We have historical trends (far more reliable) and analysis. Be of good cheer!
Let's pray & Work hard.

Remember, only three Democratic Presidents since 1860 (that is: When Lincoln ran the first time) have gotten an absolute majority of the popular vote: FDR, LBJ and Carter, the latter 2 being southerners and therefore at least being perceived as more conservative).

With all his baggage and questionable background, do you really believe Obama will be the fourth.. .? In 150 years? After limping through the primaries? In the first real contested race he has ever run? Well, if you believe it, I have a bridge to Alaska I like to sell you!

House GOP Fights to Remove ACORN Slush Fund from Economic Rescue Bill

The Democrats are still trying to push this Poison-Pill Proposal by asking Taxpayers to Bankroll ACORN Group, which has been accused of Voter Fraud, and other serious problems. Obama will be upset if leftist ACORN get cut.

Pres debate insta-poll: Independents say McCain won


By Wally Edge Category: PresidentTags: John McCain, Barack ObamaTop Story: Opinion A Survey USA poll conducted after tonight's presidential debate found that Washingtonians are nearly split on who won. Forty percent said McCain won while 38 percent said Obama.

Among independents, McCain won by 43 to 34 percent.

A plurality trust Obama to lead on the economy, a majority think McCain understands Iraq, Iran and Russia better, and a majority think Obama was more presidential.

Dick Morris & Christopher Ruddy on why McCain lost /won


Political analyst Dick Morris says Friday night's presidential debate was "a gain for Barack Obama," who was more impressive regarding economic issues, while McCain did better on foreign policy. Morris thinks the GOP nominee will take a hit in the polls and trail Obama.

Christopher Ruddy, on the other hand, felt McCain Won & here's why. (I took the liberty to abridge his key points):

There is little question that John McCain “won” the first debate. Perhaps he lost on points (arguments) and style (how could he beat Mr. Smooth?), but McCain “won” over the audience, the only victory that counts.

1. Any question that McCain is too old to run for office has been put to rest. He was sharp, on point and looked good, good enough, that is.

2. Obama was too smooth, too smart. Remember the “W. Factor.” Bush lost all the debates with John Kerry on style and substance. But Bush came across as more likeable. Ditto McCain.

3. Obama has a subtle, condescending speaking style. His hand gestures of constant pointing fingers, frequently raising his fingers to eye level, jabbing constantly, make’s one feel he’s lecturing us. Yes, Kennedy jabbed, but occasionally.

4. After, the debate I heard on a radio call in person say they listened to the debate on radio. Obama sounded like a professor. Bingo. Americans don’t elect professors president.

5. The debate opened on the economy. McCain should have scored much bigger points. He didn’t. He claimed Obama wanted to raise taxes. He should have rattled off specifics of Obama’s tax plan, including: removing the FICA tax cap, doubling the capital gains tax, increasing dividend taxes, letting the Bush tax cuts expire giving everyone an automatic tax increase, raising gasoline taxes, etc.

6. Obama also made some serious tactical mistakes. Twice in the debate he repeated the allegations of others, first saying he was “liberal” and later saying he was “naive.” Repeating labels is a no no.

7. McCain came across as authentic. This elusive quality is difficult to manufacture, and a key reason Obama can’t compete on this score...

8. Obama came across as slick trying to making himself sound more moderate than his record demonstrates. He says he doesn’t really want to spend $800 billion on new programs; he really isn’t the most liberal member of the Senate...

9. McCain demonstrated he doesn’t simply talk a good talk, but has walked the walk. He has been a long time enemy of earmarks...Obama simply has no such record.

10. On Iran, again one of the most contentious issues, McCain won because his comments grasped the gravity of the crisis.

11. Where McCain lost was on the Iraq war and the surge. Yes, McCain has been right on the surge and Obama has been wrong. But McCain came across as heavily invested in the idea of the war (creating a democracy in Iraq) and unwilling to flexibly respond to reality. Make no mistake about it: this is an unpopular war...

In sum, McCain had the most to lose from this debate. Obama is known as the great public speaker.

McCain did more than hold his own.

Must See: Who Caused This Big Financial Mess?

By: RK

Wow! what an eye-opener, even for those who are familiar with this Crises!
Most educational video I have seen in a long time, pass it on to 10 friends, yes, undecided or liberal voters! Challenge them to dispute the facts therein as to WHO caused this Big MESS!

This video plays at a pretty fast speed and it covers much ground.
WATCH THROUGH THE END. Guarantee you will learn something NEW!

This is well-documented, logical, persuasive & powerful!

McCain camp should buy 10 minutes spots & air this (an improved version) in battleground States 2 days BEFORE Election day!

Friday, September 26, 2008

Hundreds of Economists Urge Congress Not to Rush on Rescue Plan


Sept. 25 (Bloomberg) -- More than 150 prominent U.S. economists, including three Nobel Prize winners, urged Congress to hold off on passing a $700 billion financial market rescue plan until it can be studied more closely.

In a letter yesterday to congressional leaders, 166 academic economists said they oppose Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's plan because it's a ``subsidy'' for business, it's ambiguous and it may have adverse market consequences in the long term. They also expressed alarm at the haste of lawmakers and the Bush administration to pass. legislation.

Check the facts in candidate's points


OBAMA: Said oil companies "would get an additional $4 billion in tax breaks" under McCain's plan.

THE FACTS: The $4 billion in tax breaks for the oil companies is simply part of McCain's overall corporate tax reduction plan and does not represent an additional tax benefit. In other words, the corporate tax reduction applies to all corporations, oil companies included. Both Obama and McCain have proposed eliminating oil and gas tax loopholes.

MCCAIN: "I've been criticized because I called for the resignation of the chairman of the Securities and Exchange commission."

THE FACT: McCain did eventually call for the resignation of SEC Chairman Christopher Cox. But he first said that if he were president he would fire him, a step a president cannot take with the head of an independent regulatory agency. This is what McCain said on Sept. 18 during a rally in Iowa: "The chairman of the SEC serves at the appointment of the president and, in my view, has betrayed the public's trust. If I were president today, I would fire him."

MCCAIN: McCain said Obama voted to cut off money for the troops in Iraq.

THE FACTS: Despite opposing the war, Obama has, with one exception, voted for Iraq troop financing. In 2007, he voted against a troop funding bill because it did not contain language calling for a troop withdrawal. The Illinois senator backed another bill that had such language _ and money for the troops.

My analysis of the first Debate-McCain slight edge


I saw the whole debate. McCain gives the impression of a seasoned and accomplished giant. Both McCain & Obama did better than I thought. Obama has tried hard to cut down his stuttering.

Obama was expected to be a better speaker, younger & more energetic & he did, I try to be objective.

Halfway into it, I was a little worried McCain was not going to go on the offensive. McCain did better from the segment on Iran on, he's more in control.
His favorite phrase is,"What Sen. obama did not understand is..." Effective!
obama favorire phrase is,"Sen. mcCain was right....", which only validates McCain's points.
McCain was able to make Obama sounds a bit naive but obama is quick quick to think on his feet.
McCain clearly implied he is the MUCH MORe experienced, and Obama could say nothing to counter that, because he is.

McCain scored when he accused Obama of compiling "the most liberal voting record in the United States Senate" and that he has 930 million pork barrel spending, that Obama is "a recent convert to spending cuts", that Obama cut funding for troops..
Obama several times interrupted McCain, kind of rude, that will reduce his standing & respect in eyes of voters.
I am convinced that voters not only look at issues, but also the demeander. Obama at times come across a bit cocky. McCain’s refusal to look directly at Obama is a slight negative.

Obama scored points in corporate loopholes, tax breaks for oil companies (not sure exactly the words), because McCain failed to rebut. Maybe because of his age, McCain lost some points by not willing or quick to rebut all charges. He could have done a better job to rebut the charge that he wants tax cut for rich and that he voted 90% with Bush. McCain could have exposed Obama's connection to Fannie Mae and how he got 2nd largest contribution from it. Missed opportunity!
Obama could not & did not rebut McCain's statement that there is no time for "on the job training."

What kind of handlers & "experts" McCain had to coach him. sigh.

Lastly, just as with Reagan, McCain actually adopted a little humor, with usually is smart thing to do. He said,"and I don't even have the Presidential seal."
Overall, no knockout punch by either side. overall, considered age, McCain scored somewhat better than Obama. In aspect of experience, McCain scored MUCH batter than Obama. One media commentator afterwards call it," A tie". To me, a tie is a win for McCain, in light of media's liberal bias.

Newest Ernst/Young Electoral College Report: McCain win 282 vs. Obama's 256 electoral votes


This is an advance copy of the Ernst/Young Electoral College Report coming out on next Monday.
270 votes is required to win.

U.S. Presidential Election:
2008 Electoral Vote Analysis

The following represents an assessment on a state-by-state basis of the winner and the corresponding share of the electoral vote, if the election were held now.

Based on this assessment, the Republican Presidential ticket of Senator John McCain of Arizona and Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska would win 29 states with 282 electoral votes if the election were held now. The Democratic ticket of Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and Senator Joe Biden of Delaware would win 22 states (including the District of Columbia) with 256 electoral votes. The number of electoral votes needed to win is 270.

This updated assessment represents a shift of one state (Colorado) and 9 electoral votes from the Republican ticket to the Democratic ticket since the August assessment. A detailed analysis of the shift in Colorado is provided below.

The methodology used gives significant weight to recent trends in state polls. The data bases used incorporate state polls conducted by many organizations. Some of the polling organizations focus only on some states. Others poll in many states. Polling results are sometimes modified to reflect other factors.

Polling results are also supplemented by reports from state-based Democratic political activists who have agreed to provide their own assessment of the results if the election were held now.

Two caveats about this methodology. First, since this methodology relies heavily on state polls, which in turn typically only poll registered voters, it does not take into account the potential impact that newly registered voters will have. Second, since polling organizations typically call residential phone numbers, their results do not reflect potential voters (particularly young voters) whose primary telephones are cellular.

The methodology used also gives weight to: each state’s historical voting patterns in Presidential and other state-wide elections; key demographic groups (age, ethnicity, religion); 2008 primary/caucus results; and other current political developments (e.g., other statewide races for Senator and Governor, voter registration and party identification trends).

States in Red are assessed to be solidly for the Republican ticket. There are 20 such states with a total of 163 electoral votes.

States in Blue are assessed to be solidly for the Democratic ticket. There are 15 such states (including the District of Columbia) with a total of 190 electoral votes.

States in Italics are the remaining “battleground states.” Of the 16 “battleground states” with 185 electoral votes, following the table below are an analysis and rationale for each state’s assessment. In italics are factors that may still change the current result.

The last column on the right is an estimate of the possibility of the result changing between now and November.

An asterisk (*) indicates a change from the initial assessment in August.

In addition to Colorado shifting from McCain-Palin to Obama-Biden, eight states have shifted in the possibility of the result changing between now and November. Of these states, five (Alaska, Georgia, Montana, North Carolina, South Carolina) have shifted in the possibility of changing from McCain-Palin to Obama-Biden from “Moderate” to “Low.” One state (Minnesota) has shifted in the possibility of changing from Obama-Biden to McCain-Palin from “Moderate” to “High.” One state (Washington) has shifted in the possibility of changing from Obama-Biden to McCain-Palin from “Low” to “Moderate.” One state (Florida) has shifted in the possibility of changing from McCain-Palin to Obama-Biden from “Moderate” to “High.”

Of the total of nine states whose assessments have shifted since August, seven (Alaska, Georgia, Minnesota, Montana, North Carolina, South Carolina, Washington) have shifted in the direction of the Republican ticket, while two (Colorado, Florida) have shifted in the direction of the Democratic ticket.

Of those states with “High” possibilities of changing between now and November, three (Colorado, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania with a total of 40 electoral votes) might move to McCain-Palin, while four (Florida, Michigan, Nevada, and Ohio with a total of 69 electoral votes) might move to Obama-Biden. If all of these states do shift, then the result would be 285 electoral votes for Obama-Biden and 253 electoral votes for McCain-Palin.

The final section is an updated analysis of three key swing groups – Catholics, Hispanics-Latinos, and older voters (particularly women) -- who are critical to the chances of the Democratic Presidential ticket winning in November.

State Obama-Biden McCain-Palin Possibility Of
Alabama (AL) 9 Low
Alaska (AK) 3 *Low
Arizona (AZ) 10 Low
Arkansas (AR) 6 Low
California (CA) 55 Low
Colorado (CO) *9 0 High
Connecticut (CT) 7 Moderate
Delaware (DE) 3 Low
District of Columbia (DC) 3 Low
Florida (FL) 27 *High
Georgia (GA) 15 *Low
Hawaii (HI) 4 Low
Idaho (ID) 4 Low
Illinois (IL) 21 Low
Indiana (IN) 11 Moderate
Iowa (IA) 7 Moderate
Kansas (KS) 6 Low
Kentucky (KY) 8 Low
Louisiana (LA) 9 Low
Maine (ME) 4 Low
Maryland (MD) 10 Low
Massachusetts (MA) 12 Low
Michigan (MI) 17 High
Minnesota (MN) 10 *High
Mississippi (MS) 6 Low
Missouri (MO) 11 Moderate
Montana (MT) 3 *Low
Nebraska (NE) 5 Low
Nevada (NV) 5 High
New Hampshire (NH) 4 Moderate
New Jersey (NJ) 15 Moderate
New Mexico (NM) 5 Moderate
New York (NY) 31 Low
North Carolina (NC) 15 *Low
North Dakota (ND) 3 Low
Ohio (OH) 20 High
Oklahoma (OK) 7 Low
Oregon (OR) 7 Low
Pennsylvania (PA) 21 High
Rhode Island (RI) 4 Low
South Carolina (SC) 8 *Low
South Dakota (SD) 3 Low
Tennessee (TN) 11 Low
Texas (TX) 34 Low
Utah (UT) 5 Low
Vermont (VT) 3 Low
Virginia (VA) 13 Moderate
Washington (WA) 11 *Moderate
West Virginia (WV) 5 Low
Wisconsin (WI) 10 Moderate
Wyoming (WY) 3 Low

TOTALS 256 vs. 282 electoral votes